Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
“Sarbanes-Oxley” and “public company” are so often spoken in the same breath that one can easily forget the implications of the new statute for organizations that are not publicly held. Those implications may be profound and may appear in many different guises, some of which are outlined below. One deserves particular attention: Sarbanes-Oxley will expand dramatically the protections afforded by law to whistleblowers employed by private companies who allege retaliatory discharge or reprisal in the terms of their employment.
How Does the Act Affect Private Companies?
To start with, private companies may be covered explicitly by state law. At least half the states in the nation have enacted “mini-Sarbanes-Oxley” legislation, and many of those state laws expressly adapt Sarbanes-Oxley prohibitions and protections to private companies. In upcoming legislative sessions, more statehouses are likely to do so.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?